Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Purity Laws?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Vince Endris" <vince_endris AT hotmail.com>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Purity Laws?
  • Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 09:56:44 -0400


Dennis De Jarnette wrote:

I think that Paul's anti-law statement need to be looks at in terms of his prophetic ministry, His statements are similar to Isa 1, for example, I hate your festivals and new moons, when Isa does not hate them, but hates the hypocrisy of them. Paul is not against the Law but is against its use in self justification,
Sanders is wrong.

Dennis, I am not quite sure what you meant by your last statement. I can only assume that you are referring to Sanders' _Paul and Palestinians Judaism_. 1. Do you mean that you read Sanders to say that Paul IS against the law? Or 2. do you mean that you disagree with him, and rather think that Judaism was based on justification through the law?
Against the first one, I think that the whole point of this book was to show that Paul was not against the law as had previously been thought. Rather, Paul's strong polemic against it was that when put up against faith in Christ, it was nothing.
"the basis for Paul's polemic against the law, and consequently against doing the law, was his exclusivist soteriology. Since salvation is only by Christ, the following of ANY other path is wrong. . . Paul regarded zeal for the law itself as a good thing (Rom. 10.2; Phil. 3.6). What is wrong with it is not that it implies petty obedience and minimization of important matters, nor that it results in the tabulation of merit points before God, but THAT IT IS NOT WORTH ANYTHING IN COMPARISON WITH BEING IN CHRIST (Phil. 3.4-11). The fundamental critique of the law is that following that law does not result in being found in Christ; for salvation and the gift of the Spirit come only by faith (Rom. 10.10; Gal. 3.1-5). Doing the law, in short, is wrong only because it is not faith." 550

Against the second, I found Sanders' treatment of Rabbinic texts very helpful in showing what Judaism believed at the time. If you disagree with him, I would be interested to hear how your understanding of the text differ with his. On the subject of justification and righteousness, it may help you to reread page 544 where he contrasts the way that Paul sees justification or attaining righteousness (as a transference to the body of the saved - "getting in") and Judaism's view of a righteous person (one who follows Torah - "staying in").

I would like to see some evidence for your disagreement with Sanders. He has stated his case pretty well with numerous examples and meticulous treatment of texts. You wrote a four paragraph e-mail with no examples and somehow proved him wrong.

Vince Endris

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page